When Rhetoric Replaces Governance: A Leadership Test India Cannot Ignore
When Rhetoric Replaces Governance: A Leadership Test India Cannot Ignore
The controversy surrounding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s
recent remarks is not about a single word. It is about a governing style that
increasingly substitutes provocation for policy and spectacle for substance.
Over the past decade, critics argue, the tone of India’s public life has
shifted downward, and that shift begins at the top.
The immediate trigger was the artificial intelligence
convention in Delhi. Youth Congress members staged a protest by removing their
shirts, accusing the government of overstating technological achievements and
demanding answers about a U.S.–India trade agreement. The event itself suffered
a credibility blow when presenters acknowledged that a robotic dog showcased as
part of India’s AI progress was actually a Chinese-made product. A convention
meant to project innovation instead raised questions about authenticity.
What followed deepened the concern.
During what was officially described as a governmental visit
to Meerut, Prime Minister Modi delivered remarks that resembled a campaign
rally. It was there that he referred to the Congress party as “नंगी.” In Hindi, the word carries a harsh
and humiliating tone. Such language is more commonly heard in street quarrels,
not from the head of government of the world’s largest democracy. When a Prime
Minister resorts to this kind of rhetoric, it diminishes the dignity of the
office and signals a troubling decline in standards.
This is not an isolated episode.
Inside Parliament, members of the ruling party have used the
term “कटवा,” widely recognized as a slur
targeting Muslims, without visible consequence. In another instance, a BJP
leader asserted that the Prime Minister is “above questions,” a statement
fundamentally at odds with parliamentary democracy, where the executive is
accountable to elected representatives.
There have also been repeated complaints about unequal
enforcement of debate rules. Opposition leaders allege that when the Leader of
the Opposition attempts to read from documents, he is interrupted, while ruling
party members are permitted extended readings from prepared texts. Whether one
agrees with every detail or not, the perception of imbalance weakens
institutional credibility.
The tone has extended into personal ridicule. Rahul Gandhi
has been labeled an “अनपढ़ बच्चा” an uneducated child by political opponents. The issue is
not his résumé. The issue is the normalization of belittling language toward
elected representatives. When Parliament becomes a stage for taunts rather than
arguments, democratic culture suffers.
Critics also point to what they view as selective legal
enforcement. Derogatory remarks against opposition leaders often go
unchallenged, while comments directed at ruling party figures have triggered
FIRs and legal proceedings. Even the appearance of double standards undermines
public trust in neutrality.
Supporters argue that politics is inherently combative and
that strong rhetoric energizes voters. But there is a difference between
forceful debate and institutional erosion. Parliament exists for scrutiny, not
applause. A Prime Minister is meant to answer questions, not be shielded from
them. Leadership requires composure, discipline, and respect for the office, especially
in moments of controversy.
The central issue is not ideology. It is maturity in
governance.
When inflammatory language becomes routine, when
accountability is portrayed as hostility, and when criticism is deflected with
theatrics instead of answers, democratic norms weaken. A nation as large and
diverse as India cannot afford leadership that treats serious institutional
questions like rally slogans.
Democracy demands grown-up governance. It demands leaders who
rise above partisan impulse and protect the dignity of the offices they hold.
India’s strength has always rested on its institutions, not on personalities.
Preserving that strength requires restoring seriousness to public life and
remembering that power carries responsibility, not license.
A democracy is judged not by how loudly its leaders speak,
but by how responsibly they lead.
Comments
Post a Comment